a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by mk
mk  ·  1599 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Amazon Warehouse tour

    Loaded bins arrive on the conveyor, and a display tells the packer what size of box to use.

We just got a new watch battery for my daughter. The sliver of a battery package was in a 9" cube with air cushions. I'm surprised it is the most cost-effective approach. I wonder if it has more to do with being seen in delivery?





ilex  ·  1598 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I have heard a theory that Amazon sometimes uses boxes strictly larger than necessary so they can be used to keep other boxes from sliding around during shipping.

kleinbl00  ·  1599 days ago  ·  link  ·  

LOL I just got $300 worth of watch lubricants.

Packages, within packages, within packages. All this was within a box that was packed by a human so of course it was within a tiny flat rate box. But Amazon relies on conveyors and automation and those envelopes they use require an entirely different set of processes. For some reason Amazon stores their batteries in the "box" section of the warehouse as opposed to the "envelope" section of the warehouse so a box is what you get.

When I get watch batteries from Esslinger or CasKer they show up in padded mailers. When I get them from Amazon they're in boxes. It's the most cost-effective approach from a gestalt point of view because material handling is their profit margin. Meanwhile I ordered an adjustable height workbench from Home Depot that was damaged in shipping. I had to meticulously repack all the styrofoam and haul it back to Home Depot... but then they sent me another, all 150lbs of it, next day air AM from the opposite coast.

The costs of shipping have been completely buried by the externalities of logistics.

wasoxygen  ·  1599 days ago  ·  link  ·  

My last watch battery order came in a padded envelope. Perhaps the packer was out of envelopes and used the nearest substitute. If shipping is priced by weight it not make much difference.

I wonder if the added cardboard going to the landfill, now that many municipalities have given up on recycling, represents a net positive for carbon sequestration.

mk  ·  1599 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I would be surprised if the production of a cardboard box is carbon-negative.

edit: I had to look.

Some article suggesting cardboard is worse than plastic:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/31/plastics-cardboard

A site that says the CO2 emissions for cardboard generation is: 3.3 kg per kg:

http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-cardboard/

Europeans really getting into the details:

http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/documents/publications/environment/2017/NEWcarbon%20footprint-final_1.pdf

I don't think cardboard counts as sequestration.

b_b  ·  1302 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Just saw this post because of a link, so sorry to revive a dead thread. But I've been thinking a lot recently about how whoever comes up with a logistically workable reusable shipping box system is going to make a fuckload of money once carbon cap and trade is a thing. Basically they'd be manufacturing CO2 credits. Tesla sells their ZeV credits to FCA and already makes a lot of money off it. It's going to be a growth business, but I thin it will take a shitload of capital up front, so probably only Amazon can pull it off.